what do you think about the depth of field of this picture?[pic]
 

how is such a narrow DOF done? what camera settings would you guess for this? fstop, shutter, focal length?? is a DOF preview required to get such a shot?

http://content6.novoporn.com/g18483/10.jpg

*insert pic of blind person*

Sorry thats done in post. Well part of it was done by the camera but not all of it. You can see the image if you open it in a new tab.

is the pic nt showing in the thread? it is here eh.

anyhoo, here it is hosted elsewhere.

http://filefap.com/pfiles/37940/fd.jpg

still no photo...

totally bizarre, hosted at 2 different places and i can see them in the thread.

lolz, oh well.

I'll describe this for those of us who are blind.

There is a picture of Ray Charles playing piano. His glasses have cleverly been turned into red x's and there is a caption that reads "Can't see shit".

3rd host

http://www.uploadbabe.com/images/268_fgsf.jpg

Yes done in post quite easily. Thats a diff pic than the first one you posted though. From the same set though.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

I see it now...and its hot!

looks like alienskin bokeh was used

Randy West hospitalized.. wish him the best!
 

total mistake

Done just as easily by creating a new layer with blur, then erasing the portion you want unblurred.

Not really. That gives you a two dimensional blur. DOF is 3D ;)

Looks like in post to me, why they would want to blur the pussy in that pic is beyond me.

If thats a 3d blurr its a bit on the soft side as its really hard to see it that way. At least on my screen. To me it looks more like a new layer with a blur like sticky said..

Zoom macro:

Same effect on a quarter
forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1009&message=31912819

To me it just looks like the blur layer was erased with a softened edge. But I bow to Quantums experience as I could be wrong. :winkwink:

I thought you just need a "fast" lens for that...

shoot at 2.8F, lens wide open.. focus on her eyes, re-compose.

I could very easily be wrong, but here's what I see

Look at her eyelashes (in focus) and the top of her hand - spatially, these are in the same distance from the camera, and in focus.

Now, on her left hand (our right) go down the finger-tips: each one is progressively more blurred / out of focus than the previous, working all the way back to the back of the scene.

If this is faked DOF, it's very well done - because it's correct in terms of spacial positioning.

But I could be wrong :)

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh It's not a macro lens you twit!
It's just someone shooting w/ a high aperture (probably like 2.8)

I dont like that picture anyway.

looks like pussy fail :)

I only spent like 2 mins on this, but here is the original

http://stickyedits.com/dof1.jpg

Quick duplicate layer, gaussian blur, then erase the area you want in focus, then take the blur tool to the area you want to further blur to make it appear more depth of field like. not perfect, but I know there are a lot of people out there that do this is post and have their technique down much better.

http://stickyedits.com/dof2.jpg

Opps forgot to unblur the watermark lol. And couldn't find a pic that would better suit it. But someone can pretty easily do this in post I thinks.

when you say "lens wide open" do you mean full telephoto?

i find it hard to get such a narrow DOF at focal lengths <80ish.

also, what's the proper distance away to achieve this DOF .

thx :-)

It's obviously fake too ;)

hehe well ya. But point being I know there are a lot that either fake or enhance dof. As do you, btw been wanting to show some of your stuff off to a friend of mine, you should do a new thread, or post some pics in the photography thread I started the other day you posted in. Or just post a link to where I can show her some of your stuff. :thumbsup

lens wide open = 2.8 f
would think the photo was shot with a 70-200 2.8f lens of some sort
so yes telephoto zoom lens, most likely near the 200mm end of the lens

Shoot it with my cock and it won't look the same but it'll look even better!

The original is NOT a faked DOF...

Dont even question yoruself Quantum :pimp

http://www.lumpyimages.com/pinktree.jpg

All about the aperture/exposure :thumbsup

It's really the lens aperture (how much light is let in) that determines the DoF, not the distance to the subject. A smaller f- number will result in more DoF blurring, but it also needs more careful focussing.

Wide open means literally that, the aperture diaphragm inside the lens is wide open.

Most stuff is now online on my dump, in a much more friendly format:
http://www.ninjito.com :)

that first one looks like he shot it that way, Whether he intended to or not is beyond me.

thanks for the inputs everyone

i agree that these 2 aspects are quite important but focal length and distances must be figured in to the equation if one is out to achieve DOF type shots.

for instance, f2.8 at 18mm will not have the DOF of f2.8 at 20mm focal length, in fact, most any aperture at wide angles will keep the background relatively focused.

most lenses come with DOF charts where you can see the DOF range at various f stops and zoomed positions..or you can look it up online.
i used to do shoots for Barely Legal magz, they want everything flat, the entire image in focus.. in order to do that you have to shoot at f9-f11 with most glass and never zoom in more than probably 60mm
most adult web photogs shoot at f5.6 unless they are doing something special..

A favorite DOF shot a few summers back.


http://www.fetishopolis.com/kap-images/skkap761.jpg

Depth of field is hot.

http://i39.tinypic.com/2h4ltzc.jpg